Clara Hamilton v. United Steelworkers of America
3672-99-U Clara Hamilton, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America, Responding Party v. ICI Canada Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Clara Hamilton, David Share and Steven Muller, for the applicant; Robert Healey and Fil Falbo, for the respondent; David C. Daniels, John H. McNamara and Jill C. Schatz, for the Intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 16, 2000
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: "United Steelworkers of America".
2This is an application that the responding party has violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The applicant alleges that the responding party has failed in its duty of fair representation owed to the applicant.
3A consultation was held in this matter on October 11, 2000.
4The responding party had stated in its response that the application should be dismissed for delay. In the alternative, the responding party demanded fuller particulars of the application because, in its view, the application was not properly particularized.
5The Board noted that the applicant requested as a remedy in its application that the responding party process a grievance. Counsel for the applicant was asked to state clearly the applicant's grievance including the provision(s) of the collective agreement that were violated and when the facts giving rise to the grievance occurred.
6The grievance that the applicant wishes to have pursued relates to her entitlement to long term disability benefits.
7The collective agreement appears to contain an article which arguably would preclude a successful grievance.
8The Board is concerned about continuing a consultation or holding a hearing in this matter when it appears that there could be no remedy available to the applicant even if the applicant is able to prove that the responding party has violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 ("the Act").
9In the circumstances, the Board asked counsel to make submissions as to whether or not the Board should determine the availability of a remedy at this stage of the hearing and, if it should, whether there is an available remedy open to the applicant and if there is not whether the application ought to be dismissed for a failure to make out a prima facie case.
10The date of December 13, 2000 was set for a continuation of the consultation to address this issue.
11In order to permit the matter to be fully argued on that day, counsel for the applicant was ordered to provide to the parties and the Board on or before October 25, 2000 a statement setting out in clear terms the facts that give rise to the grievance which the applicant wishes to have the responding party pursue and an articulation of the section(s) of the collective agreement that the applicant says were violated by the Intervenor and the dates of such violation(s).
12The Board notes that nothing in this decision precludes the responding party from arguing that this application should be dismissed for delay, that the application is not fully particularized or that there has been no violation of the Act. These matters will be addressed, if necessary, following the determination of the issues outlined in paragraph 9 of this decision.
13Counsel for the responding party requested a full particularization of the application. The Board declined to order that at this time since the particularization is not necessary for the argument that is to occur on the next date set for the continuation of the consultation.
"Stephen Raymond"
for the Board